Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Actually, they do. Imagine being told by a hospital that your partner, someone who you had shared your life with for 30 years, was dying - but you couldn't see them because you weren't immediate family. Or imagine being told that you have no right to pick up your son from school, because the state does not recognize your union with his biological mother.

both problems that can be solved through legal documents. The problem with that answer is that it's much more complicated for homosexual couples to generate those documents than it is for heteros to get married. civil unions for all I say.

--
Rob

[mnealtx 0]

Let 'em marry - why should "straights" be the only ones to experience the "joys" of divorce?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Shotgun 1]

I think that same-sex marriage and polygamy ARE separate issues and should be considered separately. They are similar issues, but one is dealing with two consenting adults (which makes it fairly easy to apply the current laws regarding opposite-sex marriage), and the other is dealing with more than two people (which adds some additional complications).

As for the bigot/phobe label, I wouldn't personally apply that to anyone unless their reasons for being against same-sex marriage or polygamy seemed to stem from bigotry or phobia.

I'm not really sure what to think of Obama's position on same-sex marriage. I get the impression that he thinks it should be legal but that he doesn't want to come out and say that since a large percentage of the country is still against it (typical politician), but I don't know. He definitely seemed more likely to move the country in (what I feel is) the right direction on this issue than McCain did, but I would prefer that he advocate making same-sex marriage legal at the federal level.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Now if you will explain why single people, such as myself and my girlfriend, don't have the same rights as married couples (gay or het) even though we have lived together for three and a half years I would be most appreciative.

depending on the state you're in, you may and not know it. It's referred to as common law marriage. Different states have different definitions for it. co-habitation and mixing of finances are usually 2 of the points of definition.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Let 'em marry - why should "straights" be the only ones to experience the "joys" of divorce?

hell yeah... misery loves company and all that.

--
Rob

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I think that same-sex marriage and polygamy ARE separate issues and should be considered separately. They are similar issues, but one is dealing with two consenting adults (which makes it fairly easy to apply the current laws regarding opposite-sex marriage), and the other is dealing with more than two people (which adds some additional complications).

it makes them more complicated, but it's the same situation. laws regarding who can marry whom.

a polygamist can have drafted a few legal documents that would add another legally equivalent spouse to a plural marriage (almost completely equivalent that is) and have that union blessed by a pastor of their faith. but then the government decides they're married and all hell breaks loose.

What if there were 3 gay men that had such documents drafted and their union blessed by some pastor somewhere? would that ever be considered polygamy? how is that different than a man and 2 women who have the same set of docs and blessings (without the state marriage licenses)??

--
Rob

[nerd137 0]

> Gay rights advocates know that the same arguments used in favor of same sex marriage also apply to polygamy.

Really? How?

[lawrocket 3]

How does allowing gay marriage give gays special rights? You, too, can marry a man if you want. You would have the same rights that they do. Thus, there is nothing special about the rights because you have the same rights.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[okalb 79]

Quote

You're comparing apples and carrots. And just as wrong.

You are wrong, he is comparing apples to apples. The apples aren’t even of different colors. If you can’t see that, it is because you are choosing not to see it. You are playing silly word games to justify discriminating against homosexuals. Tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can sleep at night, but anyone with half a brain can see right through it. You are supporting discriminating against people because of their sexual preference. I think a lot of people would have a lot more respect for you if you just came out and said it.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[billvon 2,425]

>I say if Obama and Hillary can hold their position without the bigot/phobe
> label, then anyone else holding that position should also be able to do
>so without the attack.

If someone comes up to me and tells me "I don't think gays should marry, but they should be able to make that decision and I will oppose any ban on their weddings" then I will disagree with them, but I will respect their tolerance and their support of civil rights.

If someone comes up to me and tells me "I don't think gays should marry and I will do whatever I can to keep them from getting such rights" then I will consider them something of a bigot - because they feel that others are not deserving of the rights they enjoy.

If someone tells me "I am opposed to gays marrying because it will cause the downfall of society and weaken my marriage" I would tend to consider them a homophobe, because they have an irrational fear of homosexuals.

You, of course, can think whatever you like.

[beowulf 1]

You need another category.

Those that are entirely apathetic and will neither vote for or against gay marriages.

I really don't see what the big deal is!

[quade 3]

Quote

You need another category.

Those that are entirely apathetic and will neither vote for or against gay marriages.

I really don't see what the big deal is!

There already is a name for those, "apathetic non-voters" and unfortunately they usually are the real majority.

The pity is that they sit back comfortably watching TV or playing video games and assume that nothing that goes on in politics is anything they can do anything about or will ever actually effect them. Some would say that this is exactly what the major corporations and big government want; a placated citizenry that simply doesn't care enough to challenge the machinations behind the scenes.

I have something I'd like you to watch from over 30 years ago. It's one of the most profound statements on modern society and apathy ever written.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isSE7ux-W-M

If you don't "care" one way or the other about gay marriage, then what the fuck is it going to take to get you off your ass and into a voting booth?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You need another category.

Those that are entirely apathetic and will neither vote for or against gay marriages.

I really don't see what the big deal is!

Have you had the opportunity to vote for or against same-sex marriage? It looks like you're in Texas; did you vote on the amendment there that banned it? (Just curious.)

[beowulf 1]

I didn't even know there was an amendment to ban gay marriages in Texas.

[sundevil777 94]

Obama made it absolutely clear that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman". I think that is the exact quote, very close at least. Some will say that because he doesn't oppose states doing it on their own that he is on the right side of the issue. I say that he is nothing but a typical politician, unwilling to take a principled stand because so many do not agree with him. For that, he should be severely criticized for in effect, giving many the 'cover' to oppose same sex marriage.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I didn't even know there was an amendment to ban gay marriages in Texas.

There was a vote on it in the 2005 Constitutional Amendment Election, along with eight other (unrelated) propositions. I believe it banned both same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions in Texas. Passed by a landslide.

[billvon 2,425]

>Obama made it absolutely clear that he thinks marriage is between a
>man and a woman.

Yep. I think he's wrong. In fact, in California, he is quite literally wrong - there are 18,000 marriages between men and men, and women and women.

Now if he tries to pass legislation to enforce his opinions, then I will consider him something of a bigot as well.

As another example. take abortion. If someone is strongly against abortion, that's fine. (I am as well.) However, if they try to introduce legislation to remove a woman's right to choose, I will have a much bigger problem with them.

[beowulf 1]

Really I guess the voters made their voices heard. I don't consider this whole marriage issue to be very important.

[billvon 2,425]

>I don't consider this whole marriage issue to be very important.

I suspect you'd consider it a bit more important if you were the one whose marriage was banned.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Really I guess the voters made their voices heard.

Yep. A majority of Texans wanted discrimination to be written into the Texas Constitution. (With the exception of people in Travis County, of course - the only county that voted against it.)

Quote

I don't consider this whole marriage issue to be very important.

Do you think marriage in general is not important? Or do you just think it's not important for same-sex couples to be able to get married?

[beowulf 1]

Your first question is correct. I don't think marriage is very important regardless of sexual orientation. I would only get married if the my SO felt it absolutely necessary. Otherwise I would never marry.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Obama made it absolutely clear that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman". I think that is the exact quote, very close at least. Some will say that because he doesn't oppose states doing it on their own that he is on the right side of the issue. I say that he is nothing but a typical politician, unwilling to take a principled stand because so many do not agree with him. For that, he should be severely criticized for in effect, giving many the 'cover' to oppose same sex marriage.

No question he's taking a politician stand.

Principles are for second term presidents, historically speaking. Or for those in good economic times.

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

>Obama made it absolutely clear that he thinks marriage is between a
>man and a woman.

Yep. I think he's wrong. In fact, in California, he is quite literally wrong - there are 18,000 marriages between men and men, and women and women.

Now if he tries to pass legislation to enforce his opinions, then I will consider him something of a bigot as well.

As another example. take abortion. If someone is strongly against abortion, that's fine. (I am as well.) However, if they try to introduce legislation to remove a woman's right to choose, I will have a much bigger problem with them.

Your position on such matters doesn't influence many others. For Obama to take such an approach is quite different. Why shouldn't the Joe six-back voter that doesn't feel strongly about it take a cue from the president - if he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, then so do I. Obama is spineless, and deserves severe criticism for it. For some reason...liberals, even gay liberals don't do so much of that, I wonder why?

Besides, if it is OK to be a bigot toward polygamists (there is no peer pressure to support their ability to have plural marriages), then why should anyone care if same sex marriage is not allowed?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

You're comparing apples and carrots. And just as wrong.

You are wrong, he is comparing apples to apples. The apples aren’t even of different colors. If you can’t see that, it is because you are choosing not to see it. You are playing silly word games to justify discriminating against homosexuals. Tell yourself whatever you need to so that you can sleep at night, but anyone with half a brain can see right through it. You are supporting discriminating against people because of their sexual preference. I think a lot of people would have a lot more respect for you if you just came out and said it.

No, you are just as wrong as Bill. Racial discimination is a totally different subject than a ban on same-sex marriage. I suspect neither of you have ever been a victim of racial discrimination. I have.
I guess you and Bill have other things in common as well. Neither of you read my posts enough to know that I am not against gays having a civil union. Bill is so ignorant of this fact that he actually thinks he changed my mind.
What I am against is people thinking it is somehow treating them differently than anyone else. It isn't. NOBODY in California...white, black, red, yellow, gay, straight, deeply in love or emotionless, can marry someone of the same sex. ALL ARE TREATED EQUALLY!
Maybe YOU are willing to answer a part of a question i posed Bill and he ignored: Where do we draw the line? If we allow people to marry same-sex do we next allow siblings to marry? Or Parents marry their children? Or multiple spouses? As long as they don't produce inbred offspring they harm nobody and are no threat to society.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Your first question is correct. I don't think marriage is very important regardless of sexual orientation. I would only get married if the my SO felt it absolutely necessary. Otherwise I would never marry.

Fair enough. I used to feel that way too. And I guess I still don't think that marriage is all that important (as far as making a commitment to another person). But since it is a legal thing that is available to heterosexual couples, then I feel that it should be available to same-sex couples too.